"I’m going through one of these moments in which a lot of people have decided that they know my motives better than I do. We don’t need to get into the weeds on that (spoiler: you don’t). But it does make me feel obliged to explain my motives upfront. I want the Democratic Party to get its act together for a few reasons. For starters, it’d be good for America. Second, it’d be good for the Republican Party. Last, if the Republican Party doesn’t get its act together and instead keeps going in a statist, protectionist, price-fixing, big spending, direction with an utterly amoral approach to foreign policy, it’d be good if the Democratic Party offered a (better) alternative to that.
So, here’s what I think the Democratic Party needs to do: Punch a whole lotta of hippies.
From what I can tell, the phrase hippie punching emerged about 15 years ago, in the last days of the Golden Age of the lefty blogosphere. It was used in a pejorative way to describe the way moderates or centrists demonstrated they weren’t too radical. I think it’s a pretty brilliant phrase, in part because it’s great spin. The image of a harmless hippie, maybe holding a “Vegetable Rights and Peace!” sign, getting unfairly clobbered in the mug puts the villainy on the puncher. “Hey, man, what did you do that for?”
Phrasing like “Bolshevik smacking,” “Whackjob whacking,” or “Radical slapping” takes away some of the suggestion that it’s unfair and unprovoked to attack the lefty fringe of the party. But “hippie punching”? That’s sort of like “Amish kicking.”
Of course, this is wrong on a whole bunch of levels. For starters, we’re not talking about literal violence—I’m against literal punching in politics generally—we’re talking about arguments and, well, politics. Second, the lefty fringe of the Democratic Party punches rightward all the time (in much the same way the righty fringe of the GOP punches leftward). I mean Bernie Sanders and AOC denounce the dwindling band of moderates in the Democratic Party whenever it suits them. This dynamic is not new; it’s the way the parties have worked at least for a century.
One last point on the wrongness of the alleged wrongness of hippie-punching: Fairness is overrated in politics. Or rather, fairness is misapplied in all sorts of contexts. If, for example, a Democrat thinks the government should nationalize the health care industry root and branch, it’s not “unfair” for another Democrat to say, “I disagree. I think that guy is nuts. And, I don’t think my party should have anything to do with such nuttery.” Whether it’s good politics to draw such distinctions is a prudential question. And, in this moment, I think it’s pretty obvious that the Democratic Party needs someone to do a whole lotta punching leftward...
I sort of got into what Jonah Goldberg was talking about myself, about people that I sort of call Hipster Democrats, back in April:
"I think especially in politics and government when someone tries to look or seem "cool'... to "go viral" on social media, they look like the 45-50 year old dad, who has 3 kids, who is bored with himself and his life, so he decides the way to "fix his life" is to:
grow a goatee,
wear their heir back with an entire bottle of gel, everyday
speaks exclusively in pop culture references and catch phrases
is always seen staring at his phone and with a coffee cup, etc... they don't look real. They look like someone who is suffering through a middle age, pop culture crisis. They look like they're trying to be something that they're not...
And as Ederik Schneider said about this a couple weeks ago:
"And I agree with the point that both Matt Lewis and Rik Schneider we're making. I think the left-wing of the Democratic Party, looks like a real-life, Hollywood political film, or "or reality TV show", where everyone else is trying to "out viral" the other person and use that to jumpstart whatever career that they want to have for themselves.
But could you imagine if Socialists, even in the Democratic Party ever came to power in America? I mean their whole lifestyle, their culture, their way of life, is dependent and completely subsidized by the American capitalist and liberal democratic system. And most of them know that. Most of these folks are educated. Most of these folks make good livings for themselves, even millionaires.
Representative Alexandria O. Cortez couldn't even afford to pay her own rent in Washington, when she moved here in 2019. Now she's worth $30 million dollars. That's what can happen to you become famous and have a large following of young hipsters, who think you are the coolest thing since skinny jeans and smartphones and you write a book or 2.
So 1, I don't see Socialists ever coming to power in America, even if they're "Democrats". Because once people start thinking about what it would mean to have a socialist government in America, voters stop being impressed by all the hipster catch phrases and other fashion statements that these folks make and start thinking about how much a socialist government would cost them.
And 2, the left-wing in America, when the rubber meets the road, when everyone is at the starting gate, when the 2 warriors meet in the ring, etc... when it's time to get down and do some business... they don't want a socialist government either, because that would destroy their way of life and ability to joy life and afford all the high-end things that consumes them. But it's cool to sound like a militant hipster, (especially with young people) who wants to "take down the man" and wipeout poverty, disease, bigotry, etc. But when it gets down to how you do those things and how you pay for them, not even Socialists are interested in doing that in America."
Bill Maher talked about what Jonah Goldberg is talking about here, but referring to Occupy Wall Street, which was a very young, Millennial, left-wing, hippie/hipster, political movement, back in 2011-12. But he didn't call them Hippies:
"Yes, they're peeing outdoors and having sex in sleeping bags, or, as Bristol Palin calls it, 'dating,' but they're not hippies," Maher said on Real Time Friday. "The hippies are all gone."
Yes, anytime either of the 2 major political parties have a fringe in it, (or in this case both the Democrats and Republicans) that can obviously pose as a problem... especially when the fringe of 1 of the parties wins The White House and controls both chambers of Congress. Well, The White House and House. The Senate is run by Majority Leader John Thune... and he really isn't anyone's definition of a radical... except for course for the far-left of the Democratic Party.
But have 2 points here:
1. The reason why both major parties have their own fringes, is because of the two-party system. And I'm saying this as a lifelong Democrat, who comes from a German-American Democratic family, in Maryland. Which obviously isn't unusual in this state.
I'm not saying I want a parliamentary, social democratic, form of government, because I don't. But you let the Green Party have universal ballot and polling access, the Greens in the Democratic Party, would probably move over to the Green Party.
There isn't a far-right, third party in America, because all the far-rightists are in the Republican Party right now. The Republican (whether this was intelligent or not) consolidated the entire right wing (center to far-right) in the Republican Party. Some Socialists are Democrats, but a lot of them are in the Green Party, or other far-left third parties.
2. As I talked about last month and as Ederik Schneider talked about here 2 weeks ago, we actually don't see the left-wing of the Democratic Party as a political movement. More like cultural movement of very young hipsters, (or Hippies) who think it's cool to look and sound antiestablishment, even in the Democratic Party. Not that different from what was going on in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the Democratic Party, with the original New Left. But most of those folks were Boomers, who grew up, got lives, and mainstreamed themselves in American society.
And you go up almost 15 years from 2011, a lot of Millennials are doing the same thing as the Boomers did. A lot of them, as well as even some Gen-Y people, voted for Donald Trump in all 3 elections.
And to remind you of what Ederik said 2 weeks ago:
"So 1, I don't see Socialists ever coming to power in America, even if they're "Democrats". Because once people start thinking about what it would mean to have a socialist government in America, voters stop being impressed by all the hipster catch phrases and other fashion statements that these folks make and start thinking about how much a socialist government would cost them...
Republicans won't like hearing this, including mainstream Republicans, (you know, the Conservatives) but 1 of the major differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party... the adults don't sit at the table in the Democratic Party. They own the table and the kids sit in the other room... except when the adults need their votes for something.
The reason why "The Squad" and other left-wing Democrats, are always struggling to even get a major committee assignment, especially in the House, because they're seen as too radical and the House Democratic Leadership doesn't want to be put on the record speaking about their interesting (to be nice) statements, or actions that they take. Most left-wing Democrats can't get elected anywhere statewide in this country. Bernie and Liz are the exceptions to that in Vermont and Massachusetts. But that's out of 100 U.S. Senators in Congress. And none of these left-wingers are governors, either.
And as The New Democrat has said before, as well... 2025-26 is not about rebranding the image of the Democratic Party. Each Democrat running for elected office in this cycle, will control whatever their "brand" might be for that election. This cycle is about reminding voters that we still have a two-party system and why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to have a unified government, with almost no political checks on their power, going into 2027.
